Self defence situatio

[lklawson]

I disagree a bit with that.

I was under the impression that in most areas in the US you weren't allowed to own a gun if you had a criminal record - is that wrong, a bit wrong or slightly misinformed?

It is illegal to commit crime. Circular but true. It is illegal to use a firearm, or any weapon, in the commission of a crime. For illogical reasons using a firearm in the commission of a crime is generally treated as a vastly worse crime. If you murdered someone with poison, you get a few charges like murder, and assault. If you murder someone with a gun, you also get "up charged" with gun specific crimes along with your existing murder &tc. charges.

It's the likelihood of getting caught and punished that's the deterrent, in the hope it keeps people on the right side of the law.

Not in the U.S. Here the "revolving door of justice" is very often at work. The law abiding are worried that a criminal charge will render it so they lose their job, can't get credit, and can't support themselves and their family. A criminal who's been in and out of prison since they gained the age of majority (or before) another charge is not a big deal. Often it's considered a badge of honor or earing points.

With gun control, how do you restrict said control to existing criminals?

That's the point. Law abiding folks follow the law, by definition. Criminals don't care about the law and are going to flout it anyway.

How do you identify who is a criminal if they have no record but are only obtaining a gun in order to carry out a criminal activity?

In the U.S. there is usually a progression of the criminal starting off with petty crimes which lead to more serious crimes of violence which eventually leads to armed crimes. That is the pattern. Those people are bared from legal possession and will find a gun either by black market or straw purchase.

There's a saying, "if you criminalise guns, only criminals have guns".

Following that, it's self fulfilling - you've made having a gun illegal, so anyone with a gun is breaking the law and is automatically a criminal irrespective of their intent.

Nah. That's a misunderstanding of the phrase. The phrase means that criminals, by definition, break the law and are undeterred by laws making their possession of guns illegal. We see this all the time in the U.S. It's direct evidence that gun control laws which claim to reduce or prevent crime are a fantasy.

I could source one if I wanted though. Say I wanted one because I thought it was pretty and never intended to use or even load it - getting it would instantly make me a criminal...

And you won't. Because you're not a criminal. The criminal, on the other hand, has no compunction. So how does the law preventing you from having a gun but not effectively preventing the criminal make you any safer? Or is it just a "security blanket" (to repeat a term that has been used in this thread)?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

As an aside - it's somewhat intriguing how a thread started as "I was pleasantly surprised I instinctively used my training" turned into a gun suitability debate...

Blame JowGaWolf who wrote, "By the way thanks for sharing this experience. I think things like this are good to hear, especially for those who live in the U.S. where many people think the only answer is always .carry a gun'."

It's untrue on the face.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I'm glad your okay and that your training served you well!

 

[pdg]

Everything in this post

If you want me to reply to each point I will, but I'll give you a generalised overview of my opinion first

There are two ways to get rid of gun crime:

Make anything done with a gun legal

Get rid of all guns completely and utterly remove any access

Both options are a bit silly and not really practical.

I firmly believe that any gun (or any weapon) control measures only affect law abiding people.

I used to shoot target pistol a bit, but the tightening of restrictions means that's no longer possible in this country. I never used a pistol (or any other weapon) in an unlawful manner, nor did any of the targeteers I knew - but we were no longer able to pursue our interest. It really didn't affect the black market in the slightest though...

We've never really had the same level of gun related criminal activity here, but personally I don't put that down to laws.

As for the security blanket version - if we developed the situation where guns were routinely used in criminal activity, I would happily criminalise myself by obtaining one... I still wouldn't be a pre-existing criminal, I still wouldn't be intending to take it out and use it, but I would be committing a criminal act.

In essence, I don't see 'guns' as the problem, they're just a tool. Sat on a table they are no more dangerous than a banana.

The problem is societal - even if you achieved the fantasy I alluded to of uninventing guns, people would still kill people - they'd use arrows, or knives, or hammers, or sticks.

 

[drop bear]

Can you rephrase that as a logical, coherent question or statement with less babble?

It was understood fine.

 

[drop bear]

Which is why you don't have fire insurance or a fire extinguisher.

Like a fire extinguisher in their house?

I don't know anyone who has one.

 

[JowGaWolf]

So who do you think is pushing this stereotype-that-no-longer-is? Is it the people carrying guns for self defense or is it some other person or group?

The NRA pushes a lot of messages for gun ownership and they play on the stereotypes that they their market believes. They push (markets) these messages to their target market because it increases sales.

And, for the record, I find your proposition that "stereotypes are no longer stereotypes, once it's pushed through organized efforts" to be a bit, um, labored.

Simply put. If an organization is pushing (marketing) a stereotype it stops being a stereotype and it becomes a message.

There's nothing labored about It only sounds labored because I'm spending time trying to communicate to you in a way that you will understand what I'm saying. I don't care if you believe this or not. But I do care if you understand what I'm saying vs you thinking that I'm saying something that I'm not.

In the same way, once it was legal to drive drunk - criminalising drink driving made all drink drivers criminals.

But it did not make all people who drink alcohol or get drunk criminals. The law only made the act of driving drunk illegal. As long as you don't drive drunk then you can't be arrested for being drunk. If you drive drunk then yes this law will target you as it should.

So far, I've seen lots of claims that "people carrying guns for self defense in the U.S." think this morph into "some people carrying guns for self defense in the U.S." which morphed into "I believe some people carrying guns for self defense in the U.S."

Below is my original statement. My statement didn't morph. Note where I say. "Where many people think the only answer is always "carry a gun"" Many does not mean all. It also doesn't imply that there aren't people who think differently.

I think things like this are good to hear, especially for those who live in the U.S. where many people think the only answer is always "carry a gun"

Instead of you trying to understand what I was saying. You instantly jumped on the defense. These are your own words "Very few people, comparatively, who live in the U.S. and actually carry a gun think that the only answer is always carry a gun." I can actually prove that more than a "Very few people" believe that the gun was the only solution by pulling up gun violence statistics, which is full of people who used a gun in a criminal act to settle an argument, to prove a point, to gain fame, to take from others, or to get rid of people they don't like. Not only can I show you stats about this, I can actually show you a history of this.

Blame JowGaWolf who wrote, "By the way thanks for sharing this experience. I think things like this are good to hear, especially for those who live in the U.S. where many people think the only answer is always .carry a gun'."

It's untrue on the face.

Show me how it's not true. Again please note. I stated MANY and not ALL.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Blame JowGaWolf who wrote,

lol.. you could have just ignored what I stated and I would have said nothing more.

 

[pdg]

lol.. you could have just ignored what I stated and I would have said nothing more.

But where's the fun in that?

 

[JowGaWolf]

But where's the fun in that?

I got nothing...lol. I don't even know how to respond lol.

 

[lklawson]

The NRA pushes a lot of messages for gun ownership and they play on the stereotypes that they their market believes. They push (markets) these messages to their target market because it increases sales.

Increase sales? No. That's not the point or goal of the NRA.

Simply put. If an organization is pushing (marketing) a stereotype it stops being a stereotype and it becomes a message.

There's nothing labored about It only sounds labored because I'm spending time trying to communicate to you in a way that you will understand what I'm saying. I don't care if you believe this or not. But I do care if you understand what I'm saying vs you thinking that I'm saying something that I'm not.

I understand your claim about the way you feel a stereotype becomes a message. I disagree with it and don't believe that it is a very strongly supported proposition.

Below is my original statement. My statement didn't morph. Note where I say. "Where many people think the only answer is always "carry a gun"" Many does not mean all. It also doesn't imply that there aren't people who think differently.

And I have repeatedly contested that claim. There are not "many people" who think this. There are somewhere between 110 million and 160-ish million gun owners in the U.S. If you could find the ridiculously over-stated number of even 10,000 people who believe as you claim, that would still only be 0.000090%; a statistically insignificant number which does not even reach the level of statistical noise. The thesis that there are "many people" who think that "the only answer is carry a gun" is simply wrong and disproved by the numbers. This is because U.S. "gun culture" is, by and large, very concerned with safe ownership, use, and storage; a message driven home repeatedly by the NRA which includes safety in every one of its courses, features safety online in its web based educational material, and funds and promotes the Eddie Eagle safety program for children.

You seem like a nice, generally thoughtful, guy, but the thesis is just wrong and, again, based on stereotype, not on reality.

Instead of you trying to understand what I was saying. You instantly jumped on the defense.

Note quite. I corrected you. Your supposition is demonstrably wrong. I know that no one likes to hear this or be corrected, but your statement is wrong.

These are your own words "Very few people, comparatively, who live in the U.S. and actually carry a gun think that the only answer is always carry a gun." I can actually prove that more than a "Very few people" believe that the gun was the only solution by pulling up gun violence statistics, which is full of people who used a gun in a criminal act to settle an argument, to prove a point, to gain fame, to take from others, or to get rid of people they don't like. Not only can I show you stats about this, I can actually show you a history of this.

Horsefeathers. First, you make a false equivalency of "gun crime" and criminal actions to that of people who are carrying a gun for self defense. As a reminder, legal self defense is what this thread started with and what your initial response was clearly responding to, not criminal actions such as robbery and murder. I like you but you can't get away with that. Second, there are, at the lowest under-estimated number, at least 108 million legal gun owners and somewhere around 300 million guns, the vast majority of which are in the hands of those legal gun owners. This number dwarfs to the point of humor the number of times where an otherwise law-abiding gun owner carrying a gun for self defense misuses the firearm in cases where Deadly Force would not be justified. There are between 70,000 and 2 million Defensive Gun Uses (DGU's) per year depending on which stat you prefer (low-ball under-reported or high end estimate). How many cases per year are prosecuted for misuse of the gun by a licensed carry? So few that they don't even show up in national statistics. The closest you can get is Licensed carriers are convicted of Felonies at a rate of about 1/6th that of even "trained" Police Officers in the U.S.

I'm sorry but, again, your claim is just not true.

Show me how it's not true.

Happy to help.

Again please note. I stated MANY and not ALL.

And again, the term "many" is just wrong. If I concede that there may be "some" the actual percentage is less than statistically insignificant. It's just not a problem at all. It's a stereotype based on fear, not reality.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

lol.. you could have just ignored what I stated and I would have said nothing more.

I didn't want such a dramatically inaccurate statement to be left unchallenged. It has even less basis in fact that the, also false, stereotype that all inner-city black men in the U.S. are gang-bangers. That stereotype is wrong and so is the stereotype that "many" people in the U.S. who carry a gun for self defense think that it is the only option.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

It was understood fine.

So that would be a "No, I can't rephrase that as a logical, coherent question or statement with less babble."

OK. It was worth a shot anyway.

 

[pdg]

I didn't want such a dramatically inaccurate statement to be left unchallenged. It has even less basis in fact that the, also false, stereotype that all inner-city black men in the U.S. are gang-bangers. That stereotype is wrong and so is the stereotype that "many" people in the U.S. who carry a gun for self defense think that it is the only option.

I've sort of said it already, but...

The thing with stereotypes is they always have a basis in fact, and they always have to be reinforced (usually by the media) - otherwise they'll never get to be a stereotype.

If one American in 1932 said "you need a gun to defend yourself" it wouldn't be a stereotype.

But, throughout recent history there's been enough people say it loud enough that it's become part of the image.

Every time there's a shooting you'll get a relative on the news hourly shouting "everyone is wrong, guns aren't the answer" or similar, paired with some sort of official saying "this could have been avoided if the security guard/teacher/binman/tour guide had a gun".

So, stereotype reinforcement by soundbite reporting. It's human nature that loudest=most.

For the black gangs, there are some. They get reported. At least a few times a year somebody's grandmother is on the news screaming "someone needs to stop all our kids joining gangs", usually with a group of gang member looking youths on every corner for 10 miles in the background. Then it's followed up by a report on how you're statistically 1,243 times more likely to be involved in gang activity if you're an inner city African American.

What never gets reported (or noticed) is the massively higher number of black people (and all other ethnic groups) going to work, supporting their families, meeting their friends for a drink and going home quietly - the ones who know who their father is and how many kids they've got.

 

[lklawson]

I've sort of said it already, but...

The thing with stereotypes is they always have a basis in fact, and they always have to be reinforced (usually by the media) - otherwise they'll never get to be a stereotype.

If one American in 1932 said "you need a gun to defend yourself" it wouldn't be a stereotype.

But, throughout recent history there's been enough people say it loud enough that it's become part of the image.

Every time there's a shooting you'll get a relative on the news hourly shouting "everyone is wrong, guns aren't the answer" or similar, paired with some sort of official saying "this could have been avoided if the security guard/teacher/binman/tour guide had a gun".

That's not an example, in either case, of the suggested stereotype.

There is a set of Self Defense scenarios which include a self defense person carrying a gun which "other than gun" is an option.
There is a subset of that set in which only a gun is the most appropriate and effective response.

The claim, and the stereotype is that there are "many" law abiding people who carry a gun for self defense which conflate the second for the first.

Legally and morally, the difference is in justifiable use of deadly force. In the case you present of a "shooting" of apparently an unarmed person then, yes, there was deadly force being used on innocent parties. In that case deadly force is both a legally and morally justifiable response and, yes, a gun is the most effective and efficient small arm available for projecting deadly force as a defensive response to deadly force.

Sorry, but the stereotype is not justified, certainly not by the scenario you are suggesting.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[pdg]

That's not an example, in either case, of the suggested stereotype.

There is a set of Self Defense scenarios which include a self defense person carrying a gun which "other than gun" is an option.
There is a subset of that set in which only a gun is the most appropriate and effective response.

The claim, and the stereotype is that there are "many" law abiding people who carry a gun for self defense which conflate the second for the first.

Legally and morally, the difference is in justifiable use of deadly force. In the case you present of a "shooting" of apparently an unarmed person then, yes, there was deadly force being used on innocent parties. In that case deadly force is both a legally and morally justifiable response and, yes, a gun is the most effective and efficient small arm available for projecting deadly force as a defensive response to deadly force.

Sorry, but the stereotype is not justified, certainly not by the scenario you are suggesting.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

You're trying to apply logic and real substantiated justification to a stereotype.

Unfortunately, you can't.

I'm not trying to justify the stereotype at all - just explaining how, as an outsider to the country, these stereotypes have developed here.

It matters not a jot whether a person is correct in shooting someone who is trying to shoot them - that's entirely irrelevant. Legality and morality have no place in this context.

What 'matters' is that the reporting essentially gives the impression that 'most' Americans are of the opinion "someone might try to hurt me, better get a gun". The same style of reporting suggests that black males are probably gang members, and reinforce that by only showing the family of black male gang members or said members themselves.

So, the stereotype is set and reinforced.

 

[lklawson]

You're trying to apply logic and real substantiated justification to a stereotype.

Unfortunately, you can't.

I'm not trying to justify the stereotype at all - just explaining how, as an outsider to the country, these stereotypes have developed here.

It matters not a jot whether a person is correct in shooting someone who is trying to shoot them - that's entirely irrelevant. Legality and morality have no place in this context.

What 'matters' is that the reporting essentially gives the impression that 'most' Americans are of the opinion "someone might try to hurt me, better get a gun". The same style of reporting suggests that black males are probably gang members, and reinforce that by only showing the family of black male gang members or said members themselves.

So, the stereotype is set and reinforced.

Fair enough.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[AngryHobbit]

So I had a situation tonight which has shaken me up quite bad and people think this is fake or whatever as I've seen these types of threads been accused of it but whatever.

Tonight I was out for a meal with my kids at a small place nothing flashy just a cafe. But I went to the toilets and nt long after I went in another guy entered he was talkinh to himself and seemed edgy and jumpy. I went to leave and the guy got in front of me and asked if I had a lighter, I politely told him I didn't but he refused to move and got angry yelling and swearing at me saying I was a liar and out to get him, obviously the guy was off his head on drugs or something.

I simply asked him to move out the way then he refused so I tried to push past him and he yelled your going no where and he grabbed hold of my wrist. At that point pure instinct took over. For any kenpo guys reading I basically used the technique gripping talon. It's hard to explain but I twisted my wrist and basically got his fingers in a lock position which made him go up on his toes in pain then dropped a right hammer fist to his groin which buckled him slightly. I used that moment to push him to the side so I could get out. I ran out and told the staff in the cafe and told them to call the police and gave my number to them to give to the police to come talk to me as I had no intention to stick around while that guy was still around so me and my kids left quickly. Later on the police called and I went down and gave a statement. They knew who the guy was and was a known drug user who'd often got violent.
That was the first time I've ever had to use my training for real life and it has shaken me a bit even though I was able to do it successfully. Also I'm surprised I used that particular technique in instinct as its not one I like and honestly not one I train that often. I know other wrist grab defences which I'm way better at but I guess when instinct takes over anything can happen.

So sorry you had to go through something like that. In retrospect, it might seem odd your body and mind picked out a technique you normally wouldn't have thought of. But the good thing is - they picked something. And it worked. Kudos to you - you didn't freeze up, you managed to disable the jerk successfully. Your kids should be so proud of you.

 

[drop bear]

So that would be a "No, I can't rephrase that as a logical, coherent question or statement with less babble."

OK. It was worth a shot anyway.

It was more that everyone else got it. So therefore it was logical and coherent.

The problem was you.

By the way do you conceal carry or open carry your fire extinguisher?

 

[CB Jones]

It was more that everyone else got it. So therefore it was logical and coherent.

The problem was you.

By the way do you conceal carry or open carry your fire extinguisher?

What color paint chips did you prefer when you were younger?